Blue-eyed Devil: Should employer health plans be forced to include contraception for employees?

It's not every day you see a Muslim sticking up for Vatican City.

Then again, it's not every day you see Jews, Mormons and Protestants rallying to the defense of the Catholic Church. But President Barack Obama has managed it. He has united the world's religions ­with all of the faiths against him — at least for a second.

The provision of the Obama health-care law currently under the microscope dictates that all employers, save churches themselves, must provide their employees with health insurance that covers a wide range of contraceptives.

This includes the morning-after pill, so-called "sterilization procedures" and your run-of-the-mill hormone therapies.

What's the problem with this? The law would force every religious school, hospital and charity to conform to this mandate.

Some religions and religious folks have no problem with contraception. However, the Catholic Church does, and it has had an issue with contraception for centuries.

This isn't an issue of reproductive rights — no one wants to ban condoms, or even make them less available. This is an issue of First Amendment rights. This is an issue of religious rights. Religious folks simply want to run their institutions in accordance with their faith.

If the Catholic Church wants to shell out millions of dollars on a charity hospital, then it ought to be allowed to manage that hospital in the way it sees fit. If you have a problem with that, don't work for a religious institution.

Whatever long-term impact overturning this statute will have on women's reproductive rights in the United States will be negligible.

In fact, I doubt it will have any negative effect at all, and here's why: If we simply broadened the exemption for churches that's already in the law to all religious organizations, we believers get to walk away with our rights intact, and all of the secular businesses out there would still be required to provide the coverage.

You could even level the playing field and let the secular businesses have a tax break or something on the back side to make things more fair. That way, everyone wins.

Considering this is the first time a law like this has ever been put on the federal books, this sort of compromise would still amount to a massive net gain of women who would be insured and covered when it comes to contraceptives and unwanted pregnancy, and you don't even have to force anyone to go against their beliefs.

Some would argue that forcing every employer to provide insurance is unconstitutional anyway, but that's another Head to Head for another day.

Frankly, the whole notion is ridiculous.

The federal government can't simply step in and force religious organizations to bend to its will. They cannot, constitutionally or ethically, force people to compromise their beliefs or substitute their world views with state-approved ones.

That's the real issue.

What's the government going to do? Run St. Vincent de Paul out of town for not buying its employees condoms?

This country is a melting pot of different perspectives and world views. We have to stop trying to legislate everything into some sort of conformity. That's what's great about it. Let the Catholics do their thing, just like Planned Parenthood. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

Bottom line: The government can't make us act against our religious principles simply because it's statistically expedient. No one is hurt by honoring our religious rights, but a bunch of folks will be hurt by trampling all over them.

And to the secular-humanists behind all of this, separation of church and state cuts both ways — so why don't you stay the hell out of our churches, hospitals, mosques, synagogues, rec centers, temples and Hindu vegan potlucks?

Nicholas Pierce is a 22-year-old history junior from Baton Rouge. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_nabdulpierc.

____

Contact Nicholas Pierce at npierce@lsureveille.com